Summer tourists visiting Washington might notice something a bit unusual about some of the capital's famous monuments: The white marble structures along the Mall have sprouted electronic eyes. From the gleaming cornice of the Lincoln Memorial, for example, video cameras now loom over its famous steps.

The cameras are part of a high-tech surveillance network that local and federal police have been quietly developing in the capital over the past few months. It deploys hundreds of video cameras trained at schools, monuments, parks and ordinary street corners. The full network was put to use during the July Fourth celebration; most of it, police promised, was shut off afterward, at least temporarily. At a command center that day, officers watched a wall of monitors, which they plan to expand to include live images from security cameras in stores and subway stations.

What's going on in Washington is part of a nationwide move toward video surveillance as a response to post-Sept. 11 concerns about terrorism. As the federal government encourages municipalities across America to take responsibility for their own protection, security cameras are among the most popular options under consideration by many mayors and police chiefs. This month, for example, officials in Virginia Beach, Va., unveiled a system of video cameras installed over popular pedestrian areas and equipped with face-recognition technology.

Independence vs. surveillance

It is ironic that the latest ramping up of video surveillance in Washington coincided with the celebration of national independence. Before Americans quietly accept such curtailments of privacy as a necessary cost of the war on terrorism, they should consider the threat this trend poses to our freedoms. They also should take a close look at evidence that suggests more surveillance cameras are unlikely to make our country more secure.

First, the privacy concerns. Police are required to obtain warrants to conduct searches or to tape citizens' conversations. But such protections have not been extended by the courts to cover video surveillance.

"Police need a surveillance warrant to engage in any form of audio taping," says Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center. "But they're doing video recording with no authority whatsoever. And video cameras are, if anything, even more intrusive."

Rep. Connie Morella, R-Md., whose House subcommittee held hearings in March on the Washington camera network, discovered that there are no standards on where cameras can be installed, who is allowed to view the tapes and how long they are kept on file.

"Security is of critical importance," she says. "But let's please establish some standards and guidelines. There's something wrong about a situation where you can be walking down the street ... and there's a camera there and you don't know it."

Freedom of Information Act requests, Rotenberg says, have revealed that federal authorities have used video cameras for surveillance of political demonstrations, a fact District of Columbia police officials have acknowledged.

Eyes on protesters

Consider those cameras on the facade of the Lincoln Memorial. Then consider the political demonstrations that have taken place on the monument's steps. Would the 1963 March on Washington, or the Vietnam War protests, or even recent rallies against abortion or for gay rights, have been as free and unfettered if they had been there then?

The First Amendment right to assembly becomes a mockery if any public gathering can come under the hidden eye of authorities.

Secondly, there is no evidence that these video cameras are effective in deterring terrorists or other criminals. Take Great Britain, one of several nations that already have extensive visual monitoring systems. Great Britain has installed more than 1.5 million video cameras in public places in response to domestic attacks by IRA terrorists as well as increasing concerns about violent crime. According to one estimate, the average Londoner is now photographed some 300 times in the course of a typical day.

Yet the cameras have proven to be ineffective weapons against even relatively minor offenses: Britain's rate of street crime continues to rise steadily. There's no known instance, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, of a video camera thwarting or deterring a terrorist attack.

Many Britons have begun to complain of a growing sense of uneasiness under the watchful eye of an electronic Big Brother. Their concerns are understandable, because experience shows that any video surveillance system is only as good — and only as incorruptible — as the people who are in control of the cameras.

Our government undoubtedly needs to step up its vigilance against potential terrorism. Yet if the events of recent times have taught us anything, it's that most terrorist strikes unfold almost invisibly until it is too late.

Cameras would be ineffective

Last month, a Palestinian with bombs hidden under his clothing boarded a bus in Israel as a police surveillance helicopter hovered directly overhead. As the officers watched from above, he blew himself up and killed 19 people.

Similarly, it is unlikely that surveillance cameras could have averted the July 4 shooting at Los Angeles International Airport. The suspect, who killed two people, carried two handguns and a knife hidden from view. A van filled with explosives or a bomb hidden in a shoe of an airline passenger also would be perfectly invisible to a camera.

For politicians and police as well as for the public, it's tempting to look for easy, high-tech solutions to protect us from terrorists. Training cameras on our country's own citizens, however, may fail to deter any attacks, breed fear rather than dispel it and undermine the very freedoms Americans are fighting to defend.

Adam Goodheart, a Washington writer, is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.